The moment people become aware of unfairness, they begin to reject taxes — The "privileged treatment of the wealthy" undermines the foundation of public finance.

The More We Know About "Unfairness," the More Support for Taxes "Breaks Down"—The "Quiet Tax Exodus" Caused by Favoritism Towards the Wealthy

"Tax the rich more." Every time inequality becomes a topic, public opinion shouts this. However, the latest research has revealed a more troublesome phenomenon.

When citizens learn that the ultra-wealthy "pay lower tax rates than ordinary people," they support higher taxes on the wealthy but suddenly lose interest in "taxing the middle class."—In other words, the consent for "broad and thin taxes" that support government finances could be undermined by the exposure of unfairness.

The Experiment: What Happened When 4,000 People Were Shown "Tax Rate Facts"

The research team (King's College London, University of Geneva) conducted an online survey experiment with about 4,000 people in the United States. Participants were randomly divided into two groups.

• Control Group: Presented with information on the "overall tax rate" for income quintiles (bottom 20% to top 20%)

• Treatment Group: In addition to the above information, presented with information showing that the "tax rate for the top 400 wealthiest individuals in the U.S." is lower than other income groups

The data presented is said to be based on estimates by Saez & Zucman (2019).
And here are the results.

• When people learn about the favoritism towards the ultra-wealthy,support for taxing the wealthy increases (as expected).

• However, at the same time,support for taxing the middle class (around the median) decreases

• Furthermore, there is an indication of a weakening willingness to pay for tax increases to fund public services (though the text notes that this is statistically limited).

The paper positions this phenomenon as ahidden costbrought about by a "tax that only escapes from the top." The more the top can get away with light taxes through loopholes, the more the sentiment of "then I don't want to pay either" spreads, ultimately damagingthe country's fiscal capacity—a warning.

The Key is Not "Profit and Loss" but "Fairness"

This is important. The central reaction is not just about "whether one benefits or loses." The study points out that the main pathway of the effect is theperception of fairness in the tax system being undermined.

For taxes to function as "everyone's membership fee," there needs to be an agreement that "the rules of burden make sense." However, the moment people learn that the top effectively bear a lighter burden, that agreement collapses. Then, people

• agree with "tax the top" (feelings of punishment and correction)

• but find it hard to agree with "let's also pay ourselves (the middle class)" (the sentiment of cooperation breaks down).

This triggers a two-step reaction. The paper mentions the anecdote of Buffett saying, "My secretary pays a higher tax rate than I do" as a symbolic example.

What is Politically Frightening: "Anger" May Not Support Tax Increases

At first glance, it might seem like "it's good if support for taxing the wealthy increases." However, in many countries, government revenue does not solely rely on taxing the wealthy. In reality, public services are sustained bythe burden shared by a wide range of people, including the middle classthrough income tax, consumption tax, social insurance premiums, etc.

That's why the study states, "If the regressivity of the ultra-wealthy (where the tax rate decreases the higher you go) is left unchecked, support for broad taxation will erode, and the fiscal foundation will be shaken."

This implies that it could be a "double-edged sword" even for the left and reformists.The exposure of unfairness could boost the push for taxing the wealthy, but it might also cool the tax-paying willingness of the middle class.The paper raises this point as an implication for political communication.

Reactions on Social Media and the Internet: Even if the Spread is Small, the Issue Hits the "Usual Flashpoint"

As a premise, this article on Phys.org, at the time of viewing (displayed as obtained on January 9, 2026),shows 0 shares and 0 comments, indicating that the article itself has not spread widely.

On the other hand, the theme itself ("effective tax rates of the ultra-wealthy," "regressivity at the top") is a point that repeatedly ignites on social media. Looking at the publicly available discussions and posts online, reactions generally split into the following types.

1) The "That's Why I Don't Want to Pay" Group: The Premise of Cooperation is Broken

Posts on Mastodon often criticize the favoritism and loopholes for the wealthy and corporations, highlighting the narrative that "the burden falls on the working side."
Regarding the research finding that "the middle class cools," there is an emotional agreement of "of course, if it's unfair, I won't cooperate."

2) The "First, Close the Top" Group: Restoring Trust in Taxes = Correcting the Rules

Claims such as "we should strengthen taxation on the wealthy" and "we should respond to the concentration of wealth with taxes" repeatedly appear on Mastodon.
This group interprets the study's conclusion as "that's why we can't leave the regressivity at the top unchecked." In other words, **"to maintain support for middle-class taxation, end the exceptional treatment at the top."**

3) The "Can Opinions Really Change Just by Showing Information?" Group: Criticism of the Experiment

On the internet, there is often skepticism about such survey experiments, with comments like "won't the way the information is presented change the reaction?" and "in real politics, party affiliation is too strong to simplify." Since this study clearly states that it was designed on Qualtrics and participants were gathered on Prolific, methodological discussions may arise.

4) The "What Are Taxes Ultimately For?" Group: Lack of a Story on Redistribution and Public Services

In the blogosphere, there has long been a concern that "as the tax burden on the ultra-wealthy decreases, society cannot make necessary expenditures."

The study's indication of a "decline in willingness to pay for public services" directly addresses this issue. When trust in the use of taxes is thin, adding "unfairness" makes it easier for the justification for paying taxes to collapse.

Conclusion: If You Expose Unfairness, You Must Also Show the "Path to Fix It"

What this study highlights is not just a simple "tax the rich more" but a deeper-rooted issue.

Before taxes are a system, they are a consensus of social cooperation. The moment it appears that the top are escaping with different rules, people tend to lean towards "then I won't pay either." Therefore, if politics and media are to expose unfairness, they must simultaneously speak concretely about "how to fix it."
Simply visualizing unfairness can lead to the collapse of the "broad consensus" that supports finances—this is the heaviest warning of this short research note.